• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Baptismal regeneration

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Biblicist

The Biblicist

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rebel said:
I think one of the determining factors is how one sees the relationship between the Old and New Covenant. I think paedobaptists would believe that the New is somehow still connected to the Old or a continuation of it, whereas anti-paedobaptists believe the New is a break from the Old with different membership requirements. Perhaps that is an oversimplification, but I think it is at least partially true.
Click to expand...

Well Rebel, you hit it right on the nose. That is precisely how Covenant Theologians justify administering water to infants.

However, here is a simple way to expose the error of infant baptism.

1. Hebrews 10:1-4 says the Old Covenant ceremonial laws, especially the sacrificial aspect of the ceremonial law "could never take away sins". Because they were only figures/types or a "shadow" rather than the literal image casting the shadow.

2. Nevertheless, the Old Testament motif was to use the language of redemption with the figure because of the figure relationship with the literal, as the figure was a shadow of what did in fact remit sins (Acts 10:43). So if you go back into the Old Testament you will repeatedly find such language "for sins" for your "cleansing" associated with obedience to the types. Not because they could literally save or remit sins but because they were figures of what could.

3. The same motif is used by New Testament writers with figures/types of which baptism is explicitly said to be "the like figure" - 1 Pet. 3:21

4. The Old Testament provided the FIGURE of the New Covenant REALITY. Hence, under the figure 8 day old infants were circumcised, but under the reality that was a figure of literal spiritual children of God.

5. Finally, Abraham is set forth for "all who are of faith" as the pattern for remission of sins and imputed righteousness (justification) by faith WITHOUT external divine ordinances, as the blessedness of justification (Rom. 4:5-8) was obtained NOT IN CIRCUMCISION (Rom. 4:9-10) but in uncircumcision as a completed action (Rom. 4:11 "had" - aorist tense).

Therefore, in all ages, before and after the cross remission of sins and imputed righteousness has always been received by faith in Christ - Acts 10:43 without works, without divine ordinances.
 
R

Rebel

Active Member
The Biblicist said:
Well Rebel, you hit it right on the nose. That is precisely how Covenant Theologians justify administering water to infants.

However, here is a simple way to expose the error of infant baptism.

1. Hebrews 10:1-4 says the Old Covenant ceremonial laws, especially the sacrificial aspect of the ceremonial law "could never take away sins". Because they were only figures/types or a "shadow" rather than the literal image casting the shadow.

2. Nevertheless, the Old Testament motif was to use the language of redemption with the figure because of the figure relationship with the literal, as the figure was a shadow of what did in fact remit sins (Acts 10:43). So if you go back into the Old Testament you will repeatedly find such language "for sins" for your "cleansing" associated with obedience to the types. Not because they could literally save or remit sins but because they were figures of what could.

3. The same motif is used by New Testament writers with figures/types of which baptism is explicitly said to be "the like figure" - 1 Pet. 3:21

4. The Old Testament provided the FIGURE of the New Covenant REALITY. Hence, under the figure 8 day old infants were circumcised, but under the reality that was a figure of literal spiritual children of God.

5. Finally, Abraham is set forth for "all who are of faith" as the pattern for remission of sins and imputed righteousness (justification) by faith WITHOUT external divine ordinances, as the blessedness of justification (Rom. 4:5-8) was obtained NOT IN CIRCUMCISION (Rom. 4:9-10) but in uncircumcision as a completed action (Rom. 4:11 "had" - aorist tense).

Therefore, in all ages, before and after the cross remission of sins and imputed righteousness has always been received by faith in Christ - Acts 10:43 without works, without divine ordinances.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is good and I believe correct. That's why I agree with it. :)
 
D

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
DHK said:
Probably not. He is as staunch defender of the RCC as any other RCC on this board.
Click to expand...

RIGHT....
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

(So I guess in addition to being a "Pelagian free-will idolator", I'm also have the distinction of being a "staunch defender of the RCC". :thumbs: )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

Rebel

Active Member
Doubting Thomas said:
RIGHT....
:laugh:

(So I guess in addition to being a "Pelagian free-will idolator", I'm also have the distinction of being a "staunch defender of the RCC". :thumbs: )
Click to expand...

Hey, let's make an acronym from that, and we won't have to write it out every time: PFWI :laugh:

I'll probably be accused of it before long. :)
 
Benjamin

Benjamin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rebel said:
How would you refute this doctrine?

Personally, I am strongly opposed to it.

However, those who hold to it have scripture that they point to for support. It does seem that the early fathers believed that baptism was more than just symbolic.
Click to expand...

I don't have time to get into this now, but you may appreciate this view from a BB member who hasn't been around here for quite a while.

I used to enjoy debating with the author, Brandon C Jones, about Calvinism, at least he was rational about it, and Molinism to which I side with and he doesn't, but anyway I found myself pretty close with him on his views on the following which he has written this article about:

http://www.academia.edu/9443179/Believer_Baptism_Sacrament_of_the_New_Covenant

Its been around 5 years since I've discussed this and I should have many more notes tucked away in my docs on the subject but really wouldn't be interested in getting into it within the format here. I'm leaving town tomorrow for a few days but drop by BaptistSymposium some time if you'd like to pick this subject up, I could use some refresher.
 
R

Robert William

Member
Site Supporter
Benjamin said:
I don't have time to get into this now, but you may appreciate this view from a BB member who hasn't been around here for quite a while.

I used to enjoy debating with the author, Brandon C Jones, about Calvinism, at least he was rational about it, and Molinism to which I side with and he doesn't, but anyway I found myself pretty close with him on his views on the following which he has written this article about:

http://www.academia.edu/9443179/Believer_Baptism_Sacrament_of_the_New_Covenant

Its been around 5 years since I've discussed this and I should have many more notes tucked away in my docs on the subject but really wouldn't be interested in getting into it within the format here. I'm leaving town tomorrow for a few days but drop by BaptistSymposium some time if you'd like to pick this subject up, I could use some refresher.
Click to expand...

Baby baptism is a relic of Popery, there is not one single scripture In the entire Canon of 66 books that teaches baby baptism or gives us an example of it, all the scriptures that Padeobaptists us can be easily exposed, I've been studying the subject for more than three years. Perhaps I will start the subject in a Lutheran Forum some time, many of them will know what the common scriptures are that Padeos use.
 
D

Doubting Thomas

Active Member
Robert William said:
Baby baptism is a relic of Popery, there is not one single scripture In the entire Canon of 66 books that teaches baby baptism or gives us an example of it, all the scriptures that Padeobaptists us can be easily exposed, I've been studying the subject for more than three years. Perhaps I will start the subject in a Lutheran Forum some time, many of them will know what the common scriptures are that Padeos use.
Click to expand...

Uh oh...I better give the Lutherans a fair warning. :laugh:

Be advised, I suspect some of these Lutherans have also been "studying the subject for more than three years" (to say the least), and they just might take issue with the assertions that "Baby baptism is a relic of Popery" and "there is not one single scripture in the entire canon of 66 books that teaches baby baptism". (Just thought I'd let you know. :thumbs: )

But, hey....knock yourself out. I'm sure they won't mind at all when you call them 'Pelagians' after they don't warmly receive your Five-Point propaganda. :smilewinkgrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
O

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Robert William said:
Baby baptism is a relic of Popery, there is not one single scripture In the entire Canon of 66 books that teaches baby baptism or gives us an example of it, all the scriptures that Padeobaptists us can be easily exposed, I've been studying the subject for more than three years. Perhaps I will start the subject in a Lutheran Forum some time, many of them will know what the common scriptures are that Padeos use.
Click to expand...

The teaching of the papa and teaching magisterium trump Scripture every time.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
 
Benjamin

Benjamin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Robert William said:
Baby baptism is a relic of Popery, there is not one single scripture In the entire Canon of 66 books that teaches baby baptism or gives us an example of it, all the scriptures that Padeobaptists us can be easily exposed, I've been studying the subject for more than three years. Perhaps I will start the subject in a Lutheran Forum some time, many of them will know what the common scriptures are that Padeos use.
Click to expand...

There is no focus on "baby baptism" in the article I offered, nor did I even mention it - so I haven't a clue what your response is supposed to mean to me...
smiley-confused005.gif
 
R

Rebel

Active Member
Benjamin said:
I don't have time to get into this now, but you may appreciate this view from a BB member who hasn't been around here for quite a while.

I used to enjoy debating with the author, Brandon C Jones, about Calvinism, at least he was rational about it, and Molinism to which I side with and he doesn't, but anyway I found myself pretty close with him on his views on the following which he has written this article about:

http://www.academia.edu/9443179/Believer_Baptism_Sacrament_of_the_New_Covenant

Its been around 5 years since I've discussed this and I should have many more notes tucked away in my docs on the subject but really wouldn't be interested in getting into it within the format here. I'm leaving town tomorrow for a few days but drop by BaptistSymposium some time if you'd like to pick this subject up, I could use some refresher.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the invitation. But I read the statement of faith over there, and I don't believe I'd be allowed to post because there are some things in the confession that I can't affirm.
 
Benjamin

Benjamin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rebel said:
I appreciate the invitation. But I read the statement of faith over there, and I don't believe I'd be allowed to post because there are some things in the confession that I can't affirm.
Click to expand...

I can't image what that would be. The All Christian forums SoF is very basic - Trinity, Jesus, authority of Scriptures and the return of Christ. I'm sure the same expectations are in this forum, but I'm curious if you'd like to PM me.

Hope you looked at the article.
 
R

Rebel

Active Member
Benjamin said:
I can't image what that would be. The All Christian forums SoF is very basic - Trinity, Jesus, authority of Scriptures and the return of Christ. I'm sure the same expectations are in this forum, but I'm curious if you'd like to PM me.

Hope you looked at the article.
Click to expand...

Yes, I read the article. I thought it was good.

I don't mind stating what I can't affirm here because I don't intend to argue about it with anyone. I don't hold to substitutionary atonement or inerrancy of scripture. I think words such as "infallible" and "inerrant" can be rightly applied only to God Himself.
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rebel said:
Yes, I read the article. I thought it was good.

I don't mind stating what I can't affirm here because I don't intend to argue about it with anyone. I don't hold to substitutionary atonement or inerrancy of scripture. I think words such as "infallible" and "inerrant" can be rightly applied only to God Himself.
Click to expand...

Yea we would not want to apply those words to His work (ie the word of God) only Him. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top